gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 10:52:36 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 Go Down Print
Author Topic: interesting article: "Mike Love states his case"  (Read 105888 times)
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #450 on: March 03, 2015, 06:52:41 AM »

All back to the lack of proper communications between band members and the lack of specific Beach Bous management referenced by Howie. Doesn't matter how many times they chatted about the prospects of another album in be C50 dressing rooms, it needed formalising into a contract and no one picked that up and went with it. When one member says "we didn't talk about" I feel that means "we didn't talk about it formally". When another says "we did talk about it" I reckon that, likewise, they mean it was discussed informally ("wouldn't it be nice if?) but nothing substantial was put on the table for a formal BRI or band member meeting. They're still talking round in circles and I still think it was an opportunity missed, with no individual party to blame. Brian's album will be a beauty, I'm sure; and I'm sure that at one stage it might have been a Beach Boys album, either "as well as", or "instead of".

No matter, life goes on… and we lap up whatever crumbs they throw our way.

The problem is, if Mike simply means that nothing “formal” was set in stone for another BB album and only casual discussion took place, but then seems to take issue with the NPP press release, then it makes no sense. The NPP press release don’t say any formal talks took place. In fact, the NPP press release doesn’t even suggest *any* talks took place. It simply says that Brian envisioned another album.

The whole article seems to be predicated on Mike taking issue with the NPP press release. *That* is why his commentary comes across as if the mere idea of another BB album is insane, as if nobody ever mentioned anything about it.

I believe one has to do A LOT of bending and molding to take the 2012 “there’s talk of another album” and this recent Mike commentary and NOT find it pretty directly contradictory.

To me, it’s kind of a lousy move towards fans to give interviews indicating there’s talk of another album, and then less than three years later literally say “there was never any discussions within the group.” Fans obviously have to keep appropriate (e.g. extremely low) expectations, but there’s a point at which the contradiction between two interviews is more than just an empirical observation, and becomes a demonstration of what one’s attitude is towards fans.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 06:56:41 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1948

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #451 on: March 03, 2015, 07:01:35 AM »

Pinder is just derailing the thread to get it locked so Mike can't be bashed anymore.
LOL LOL LOL   By the way, we know we're mental midgets, but which one of us is the f*ckwit and which is the shitweasel? Or are we all three?  Shrug Shrug
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #452 on: March 03, 2015, 07:08:36 AM »

Good question  LOL
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
The Shift
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 7427


Biding time


View Profile
« Reply #453 on: March 03, 2015, 07:13:06 AM »

All back to the lack of proper communications between band members and the lack of specific Beach Bous management referenced by Howie. Doesn't matter how many times they chatted about the prospects of another album in be C50 dressing rooms, it needed formalising into a contract and no one picked that up and went with it. When one member says "we didn't talk about" I feel that means "we didn't talk about it formally". When another says "we did talk about it" I reckon that, likewise, they mean it was discussed informally ("wouldn't it be nice if?) but nothing substantial was put on the table for a formal BRI or band member meeting. They're still talking round in circles and I still think it was an opportunity missed, with no individual party to blame. Brian's album will be a beauty, I'm sure; and I'm sure that at one stage it might have been a Beach Boys album, either "as well as", or "instead of".

No matter, life goes on… and we lap up whatever crumbs they throw our way.

The problem is, if Mike simply means that nothing “formal” was set in stone for another BB album and only casual discussion took place, but then seems to take issue with the NPP press release, then it makes no sense. The NPP press release don’t say any formal talks took place. In fact, the NPP press release doesn’t even suggest *any* talks took place. It simply says that Brian envisioned another album.

The whole article seems to be predicated on Mike taking issue with the NPP press release. *That* is why his commentary comes across as if the mere idea of another BB album is insane, as if nobody ever mentioned anything about it.

I believe one has to do A LOT of bending and molding to take the 2012 “there’s talk of another album” and this recent Mike commentary and NOT find it pretty directly contradictory.

To me, it’s kind of a lousy move towards fans to give interviews indicating there’s talk of another album, and then less than three years later literally say “there was never any discussions within the group.” Fans obviously have to keep appropriate (e.g. extremely low) expectations, but there’s a point at which the contradiction between two interviews is more than just an empirical observation, and becomes a demonstration of what one’s attitude is towards fans.


It's not an interview though - it's a rambling reply to an innocuous "have you heard Brian's latest?" query. That's my take on the original piece posted, anyway. And as such, I wouldn't expect a carefully worded, considers response which went back to the source materials. I'd simply expect Mike to ramble on off the top of his head, without regard for the minutia. When I'm gassing wih pals in the pub, I don't carry a box of reference books; and that's the atmosphere I'm assuming applied here. I'm more surprised that David saw fit to share it than by anybinvoices Mike said. Have to make allowances.
Logged

“We live in divisive times.”
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #454 on: March 03, 2015, 07:24:59 AM »

All back to the lack of proper communications between band members and the lack of specific Beach Bous management referenced by Howie. Doesn't matter how many times they chatted about the prospects of another album in be C50 dressing rooms, it needed formalising into a contract and no one picked that up and went with it. When one member says "we didn't talk about" I feel that means "we didn't talk about it formally". When another says "we did talk about it" I reckon that, likewise, they mean it was discussed informally ("wouldn't it be nice if?) but nothing substantial was put on the table for a formal BRI or band member meeting. They're still talking round in circles and I still think it was an opportunity missed, with no individual party to blame. Brian's album will be a beauty, I'm sure; and I'm sure that at one stage it might have been a Beach Boys album, either "as well as", or "instead of".

No matter, life goes on… and we lap up whatever crumbs they throw our way.

The problem is, if Mike simply means that nothing “formal” was set in stone for another BB album and only casual discussion took place, but then seems to take issue with the NPP press release, then it makes no sense. The NPP press release don’t say any formal talks took place. In fact, the NPP press release doesn’t even suggest *any* talks took place. It simply says that Brian envisioned another album.

The whole article seems to be predicated on Mike taking issue with the NPP press release. *That* is why his commentary comes across as if the mere idea of another BB album is insane, as if nobody ever mentioned anything about it.

I believe one has to do A LOT of bending and molding to take the 2012 “there’s talk of another album” and this recent Mike commentary and NOT find it pretty directly contradictory.

To me, it’s kind of a lousy move towards fans to give interviews indicating there’s talk of another album, and then less than three years later literally say “there was never any discussions within the group.” Fans obviously have to keep appropriate (e.g. extremely low) expectations, but there’s a point at which the contradiction between two interviews is more than just an empirical observation, and becomes a demonstration of what one’s attitude is towards fans.


It's not an interview though - it's a rambling reply to an innocuous "have you heard Brian's latest?" query. That's my take on the original piece posted, anyway. And as such, I wouldn't expect a carefully worded, considers response which went back to the source materials. I'd simply expect Mike to ramble on off the top of his head, without regard for the minutia. When I'm gassing wih pals in the pub, I don't carry a box of reference books; and that's the atmosphere I'm assuming applied here. I'm more surprised that David saw fit to share it than by anybinvoices Mike said. Have to make allowances.

But that gets back to the context of the article in the first place. I agree that your description is closer what the end result actually is. But the article doesn’t seem to be intended that way. It’s set up as if the author is deeply concerned with other media outlets saying something he disagrees with, and thus he’s going to the ultimate source to get to the bottom of the issue.

If the article had been a case of “Hey, I ran into Mike Love and just innocently asked him if he had heard the new BW single. Take a look at this monologue he went off on….”, then it would be more just a curiosity; essentially just another personal story of someone striking up a conversation with someone from the band.

This article was not presented that way, and my *guess* is that the author doesn’t want it to be taken that lightly.

I think the reason a lot of folks are taking issue with the article is that the hypothesis that the article starts with is flawed, and the response he got from Mike was confusing and contradictory. While I can suggest that more questions and/or follow-up questions could have been asked, I can’t of course fault the interviewer for what the interviewee said. But any sort of additional commentary, fair commentary, could have cleared at least some of that up. A quick “Love had mentioned in 2012 that there *had* been discussions of another album, but we were unable to track him down for follow-up questions” would have least slightly mitigated everything that came before it in the article.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
The Shift
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Gender: Male
Posts: 7427


Biding time


View Profile
« Reply #455 on: March 03, 2015, 08:00:26 AM »

All back to the lack of proper communications between band members and the lack of specific Beach Bous management referenced by Howie. Doesn't matter how many times they chatted about the prospects of another album in be C50 dressing rooms, it needed formalising into a contract and no one picked that up and went with it. When one member says "we didn't talk about" I feel that means "we didn't talk about it formally". When another says "we did talk about it" I reckon that, likewise, they mean it was discussed informally ("wouldn't it be nice if?) but nothing substantial was put on the table for a formal BRI or band member meeting. They're still talking round in circles and I still think it was an opportunity missed, with no individual party to blame. Brian's album will be a beauty, I'm sure; and I'm sure that at one stage it might have been a Beach Boys album, either "as well as", or "instead of".

No matter, life goes on… and we lap up whatever crumbs they throw our way.

The problem is, if Mike simply means that nothing “formal” was set in stone for another BB album and only casual discussion took place, but then seems to take issue with the NPP press release, then it makes no sense. The NPP press release don’t say any formal talks took place. In fact, the NPP press release doesn’t even suggest *any* talks took place. It simply says that Brian envisioned another album.

The whole article seems to be predicated on Mike taking issue with the NPP press release. *That* is why his commentary comes across as if the mere idea of another BB album is insane, as if nobody ever mentioned anything about it.

I believe one has to do A LOT of bending and molding to take the 2012 “there’s talk of another album” and this recent Mike commentary and NOT find it pretty directly contradictory.

To me, it’s kind of a lousy move towards fans to give interviews indicating there’s talk of another album, and then less than three years later literally say “there was never any discussions within the group.” Fans obviously have to keep appropriate (e.g. extremely low) expectations, but there’s a point at which the contradiction between two interviews is more than just an empirical observation, and becomes a demonstration of what one’s attitude is towards fans.


It's not an interview though - it's a rambling reply to an innocuous "have you heard Brian's latest?" query. That's my take on the original piece posted, anyway. And as such, I wouldn't expect a carefully worded, considers response which went back to the source materials. I'd simply expect Mike to ramble on off the top of his head, without regard for the minutia. When I'm gassing wih pals in the pub, I don't carry a box of reference books; and that's the atmosphere I'm assuming applied here. I'm more surprised that David saw fit to share it than by anybinvoices Mike said. Have to make allowances.

But that gets back to the context of the article in the first place. I agree that your description is closer what the end result actually is. But the article doesn’t seem to be intended that way. It’s set up as if the author is deeply concerned with other media outlets saying something he disagrees with, and thus he’s going to the ultimate source to get to the bottom of the issue.

If the article had been a case of “Hey, I ran into Mike Love and just innocently asked him if he had heard the new BW single. Take a look at this monologue he went off on….”, then it would be more just a curiosity; essentially just another personal story of someone striking up a conversation with someone from the band.

This article was not presented that way, and my *guess* is that the author doesn’t want it to be taken that lightly.

I think the reason a lot of folks are taking issue with the article is that the hypothesis that the article starts with is flawed, and the response he got from Mike was confusing and contradictory. While I can suggest that more questions and/or follow-up questions could have been asked, I can’t of course fault the interviewer for what the interviewee said. But any sort of additional commentary, fair commentary, could have cleared at least some of that up. A quick “Love had mentioned in 2012 that there *had* been discussions of another album, but we were unable to track him down for follow-up questions” would have least slightly mitigated everything that came before it in the article.


I can heartily agree with the vast bulk of that. I feel very much that the fault - and the subsequent furore - lies in the presentation. Haven't read the edited version, yet.
Logged

“We live in divisive times.”
ESQ Editor
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 541


View Profile
« Reply #456 on: March 03, 2015, 09:05:40 AM »

Mike stated that Brian mentioned doing a rock and roll album of covers of their favorite songs.  That was the only idea being floated that Mike was aware of… So, no reason to ask a follow up.  Not one track on NPP is a rock and roll cover song, so the distinction is clear.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 09:14:41 AM by ESQ Editor » Logged
elnombre
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 484


View Profile
« Reply #457 on: March 03, 2015, 09:35:57 AM »

Mike stated that Brian mentioned doing a rock and roll album of covers of their favorite songs.  That was the only idea being floated that Mike was aware of… So, no reason to ask a follow up.  Not one track on NPP is a rock and roll cover song, so the distinction is clear.

I thought the rock and roll covers album was touted as the original idea for the reunion album before they decided to go with all originals? This is getting confusing.

Pinder is just derailing the thread to get it locked so Mike can't be bashed anymore.
LOL LOL LOL   By the way, we know we're mental midgets, but which one of us is the f*ckwit and which is the shitweasel? Or are we all three?  Shrug Shrug

By the way, F*ckwit & Shitweasel is a buddy cop show I'd watch in a heart beat. Doubt it'd last more than one season, mind you.
Logged
Micha
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3133



View Profile WWW
« Reply #458 on: March 03, 2015, 09:58:21 AM »

Mike stated that Brian mentioned doing a rock and roll album of covers of their favorite songs.  That was the only idea being floated that Mike was aware of… So, no reason to ask a follow up.  Not one track on NPP is a rock and roll cover song, so the distinction is clear.

I thought the rock and roll covers album was touted as the original idea for the reunion album before they decided to go with all originals? This is getting confusing.

Obviously they axed that original idea of a cover album and started right away with the follow-up. So when Brian talked about a follow-up album he meant the follow-up to TWGMTR and Mike thought TWGMTR was the follow-up! Cheesy

Weeeell... At least I tried to find an explanation. Grin
Logged

Ceterum censeo SMiLEBrianum OSDumque esse excludendos banno.
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #459 on: March 03, 2015, 09:59:04 AM »

Mike stated that Brian mentioned doing a rock and roll album of covers of their favorite songs.  That was the only idea being floated that Mike was aware of… So, no reason to ask a follow up.  Not one track on NPP is a rock and roll cover song, so the distinction is clear.

Mike had previously mentioned in another interview some time back that he had discussed a “covers” album with Brian. As I recall, this *pre-dated* the record deal and the recording of TWGMTR.

Then, *after* TWGMTR came out, during the 50th tour, Mike said in interviews that they had discussed the possibility of another album.

Beyond that issue, there are *countless* follow-up questions that could have and should have been asked in that interview. If it wasn’t possible to ask any, that’s one thing (in which case, I would suggest holding off on printing it until follow-up can be done). But if you asked one question about whether Mike had heard the new BW track, and he gave you *that* response, and you didn’t feel there was any need to ask *any* follow-up questions, that is stunning.

That “covers” album idea has ZERO to do with NPP. I’m not sure why you’re trying to conflate those ideas just so you can claim NPP *isn’t* that non-existent album. The “covers” album is as much if not more of a “theoretical” album than the “could have been” follow-up BB album.

It’s patently clear Brian wanted to record a NEW Beach Boys album of NEW material, after TWGMTR. It doesn’t appear Al Jardine or David Marks said no. Not only did they continue to record with Brian, but Al specifically mentioned in interviews that they had extra songs from TWGMTR they could have worked with; Al seemed more enthusiastic for another BB album than Brian did. Brian clearly wrote/prepared additional material with an eye towards more BB recordings. The “NPP” press release was polite and diplomatic enough to not go beyond “it was not to be” when discussing what *could* have been another BB album.

Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge that another BB album could have, and perhaps would have occurred had things gone the way Brian (and Al) wanted. That’s all. Brian and most fans have gotten over it. NPP sounds like it will be cool. But that doesn’t mean reviews or band members or fans should refrain from mentioning in passing “oh yeah, that would have been interesting if Brian could have made another BB album like he wanted to.”
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 10:04:29 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Howie Edelson
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 672


View Profile
« Reply #460 on: March 03, 2015, 10:01:57 AM »

I think the most obvious followup question would be: "For someone who had no interest in participating in this new album, and had made no overtures to do so, you have such an opinionated and seemingly prepared negative response to its existence. Why is that? By your word and deed you clearly have no interest in a working partnership with your cousin. In fact, the way you're talking almost sounds like you did during the height of the Landy era. Can you name the moment during the 2012 tour when the partnership turned sour again?"

THAT'S your followup. Right there. Your followup is "WHAT HAPPENED?"

I don't wanna dump on you David, but that's the gig. You might not get the posed photo with your arm around them afterwards (but you probably will).

For the record, Mike Love told me this, on the record during the tour, which would leave no one to doubt that after some fine tuning, he would be more than happy to carry on with a new album and future "real group" dates:  

____________________________________________


There was a classic Carl quote from an interview where he said, “Remember when we said Brian was back – well, he’s really back now!” Now the thing that the true fans want to know is – “Does Mike have Brian back???”


Well, on the new album, the only thing I missed was getting together with Brian, one on one and creating songs from scratch, like we did with “Do It Again,” like we did with “Fun, Fun, Fun,” like we did with “Surfin’ Safari” and “California Girls.” That did not happen on this album. What it was was quote a few songs that Brian had started, or that Brian and Joe Thomas had developed and then there were some lyrics that weren’t finished – like on “Isn’t It Time.” So, I came in and was basically asked to complete some of these songs – which I did, gladly, and sing my parts and what have you. But, getting together and writing a song from its inception was not part of this album project -- with Brian, that is.  So, I could use a little more one on one time with Brian, if we’re gonna do another album – that’s for sure.

With Joe Thomas, it’s like an intermediary came in and kind of glued this thing together with the 50 Big Ones Productions. Now, as far as financing everything, getting everyone together, financing the tour…

He did a really great job. There’s not many people that could’ve done and ‘gotta give him a lotta credit for the success of this album project. ‘Cause I don’t think there would be a contemporary album without the energy and organization that he put into it.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 10:16:35 AM by Howie Edelson » Logged
bossaroo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 1631


...let's be friends...


View Profile
« Reply #461 on: March 03, 2015, 11:30:20 AM »

it wouldn't make a lot of sense to do a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material.

nor would it make sense to break up the reunion and revert back to playing Sea World and state fairs with John Stamos instead of the actual Beach Boys. so there you go.
Logged
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #462 on: March 03, 2015, 11:36:08 AM »

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.

Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #463 on: March 03, 2015, 11:36:29 AM »

it wouldn't make a lot of sense to do a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material.

nor would it make sense to break up the reunion and revert back to playing Sea World and state fairs with John Stamos instead of the actual Beach Boys. so there you go.

The only reason I could think of that a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material would be because it would have been a very passive project, relatively free of emotional roadblocks that would come with dealing with a bandmember whose demands meant that Brian wouldn't have been able to properly express himself creatively.  Mike's demands would have been a much smaller thorn in Brian's side if it was just covers that were gonna be done.

After all, isn't that likely why a project like 15 Big Ones exists, and why after being berated for Adult Child, Brian reverted to doing a bunch of covers in the late 70s/early 80s?

I'd say we came out ahead with NPP existing.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 11:37:45 AM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #464 on: March 03, 2015, 11:48:13 AM »

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.



Maybe it’s just me, but that’s not on the same page at all. “Talk” versus “Discussion”; Clearly we have different ideas of what those two words constitute. Mike may have some other definition. Either way, the NPP press release says nothing other than Brian wanted to do another album. So I’m still unclear why Mike is criticizing that press release.

Given all the other evidence at our disposal, I’m not prepared to say that Mike’s recent interview conveys anything other than Mike seems to now be completely perplexed all of a sudden at the mere idea of another album being considered.

I think *previous* comments from Mike indicate varying levels of interest or willingness to do another album and tour, but your wording suggests those things never took place simply because nothing was ever set in stone. So basically, we’re back to the specious argument that “they didn’t do another tour because they didn’t do another tour.” The question is, why didn’t they work towards setting anything in stone? That gets us back to who was willing and able to do another album and tour in the immediate aftermath of C50. *That* seems crystal clear based on comments from all parties involved. Brian and Al (and presumably Dave) were ready and willing. They couldn’t set anything in stone until *all* parties had a willingness to continue. Booking non-reunion shows before the reunion tour is even done doesn’t show that willingness or intent.

Remember as well, part of the at least on-the-surface disagreement about more reunion activity seemed to stem from timing. One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #465 on: March 03, 2015, 11:54:47 AM »

it wouldn't make a lot of sense to do a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material.

nor would it make sense to break up the reunion and revert back to playing Sea World and state fairs with John Stamos instead of the actual Beach Boys. so there you go.

The only reason I could think of that a rock'n'roll covers album on the heels of a #3 release of original material would be because it would have been a very passive project, relatively free of emotional roadblocks that would come with dealing with a bandmember whose demands meant that Brian wouldn't have been able to properly express himself creatively.  Mike's demands would have been a much smaller thorn in Brian's side if it was just covers that were gonna be done.

After all, isn't that likely why a project like 15 Big Ones exists, and why after being berated for Adult Child, Brian reverted to doing a bunch of covers in the late 70s/early 80s?

I'd say we came out ahead with NPP existing.

I think we’re losing the plot here, though. Apart from David Beard’s interpretation of the Mike Love essay he prompted, I don’t see *any* indication that “oldies covers” album was something being considered once the actual reunion started. I don’t even read Mike’s new interview as suggesting that.

The couple of times Mike has mentioned the “covers” album, I think he’s simply saying “here’s another example of how something changed.”

All indications are that the “covers” album idea was thrown around well before the record deal and recording of TWGMTR. I have a vague recollection that one interview mentioned that those “covers” album discussions (which certainly sounded like nothing more than batting ideas around) took place as much as a year or two before the actual reunion took place. That idea clearly was dropped, and Brian and Joe got a deal with Capitol for a BB album based on Brian/Joe songs. Mike signed on for that at some point obviously. He later indicated in interviews that he would have preferred for either that BB album and/or a future BB album to feature he and Brian writing songs alone. Then, Brian wanted to do another album. That never happened. Mike’s own comments seemed highly indicative then of *why* that album didn’t happen the way Brian had hoped/wanted.

It would probably save everybody a lot of ink and typing and debating if we could just get a statement along the lines of “I don’t want to do another Beach Boys album where Brian and Joe write most of the songs with little or no input from me.” That sentiment would be disagreeable to some fans, but at least it would be clear and unambiguous.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2015, 11:57:25 AM by HeyJude » Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #466 on: March 03, 2015, 11:59:11 AM »

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.


One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 


If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #467 on: March 03, 2015, 12:03:09 PM »

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.


One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 


If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Cam Mott
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4171


View Profile
« Reply #468 on: March 03, 2015, 12:50:52 PM »

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.



Maybe it’s just me, but that’s not on the same page at all. “Talk” versus “Discussion”; Clearly we have different ideas of what those two words constitute. Mike may have some other definition. Either way, the NPP press release says nothing other than Brian wanted to do another album. So I’m still unclear why Mike is criticizing that press release.

Given all the other evidence at our disposal, I’m not prepared to say that Mike’s recent interview conveys anything other than Mike seems to now be completely perplexed all of a sudden at the mere idea of another album being considered.

I think *previous* comments from Mike indicate varying levels of interest or willingness to do another album and tour, but your wording suggests those things never took place simply because nothing was ever set in stone. So basically, we’re back to the specious argument that “they didn’t do another tour because they didn’t do another tour.” The question is, why didn’t they work towards setting anything in stone? That gets us back to who was willing and able to do another album and tour in the immediate aftermath of C50. *That* seems crystal clear based on comments from all parties involved. Brian and Al (and presumably Dave) were ready and willing. They couldn’t set anything in stone until *all* parties had a willingness to continue. Booking non-reunion shows before the reunion tour is even done doesn’t show that willingness or intent.

Remember as well, part of the at least on-the-surface disagreement about more reunion activity seemed to stem from timing. One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 


I can talk about a lot of stuff and you could hear me but we haven't discussed a thing. Somebody else could talk about a lot of things they want to do for both of us and we listened but we haven't discussed anything. Discussion was also in the context of "within the group" about concrete things in writing which according to Mike, as I take it, was still in the future in September 2012 and in 2015 had never happened back then or since.
Logged

"Bring me the head of Carmen Sandiego" Lynne "The Chief" Thigpen
Jim V.
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 3038



View Profile
« Reply #469 on: March 03, 2015, 01:05:31 PM »

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.


One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 


If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.


Or maybe this means that even Mike knows that his little merry band of bald guys, fat guys, and guys wearing girl jeans isn't The Beach Boys, and therefore him touring as "The Beach Boys" wouldn't have any effect on demand.

But at the same time, let's be honest: he obviously was just doing the whole "take a year away" thing so people would be off of his back. I don't believe he had any intention to reunite again unless it meant that Brian joined Mike's band and decided to do an album of covers and Wilson/Love co-writes.
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #470 on: March 03, 2015, 01:07:03 PM »

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.



Maybe it’s just me, but that’s not on the same page at all. “Talk” versus “Discussion”; Clearly we have different ideas of what those two words constitute. Mike may have some other definition. Either way, the NPP press release says nothing other than Brian wanted to do another album. So I’m still unclear why Mike is criticizing that press release.

Given all the other evidence at our disposal, I’m not prepared to say that Mike’s recent interview conveys anything other than Mike seems to now be completely perplexed all of a sudden at the mere idea of another album being considered.

I think *previous* comments from Mike indicate varying levels of interest or willingness to do another album and tour, but your wording suggests those things never took place simply because nothing was ever set in stone. So basically, we’re back to the specious argument that “they didn’t do another tour because they didn’t do another tour.” The question is, why didn’t they work towards setting anything in stone? That gets us back to who was willing and able to do another album and tour in the immediate aftermath of C50. *That* seems crystal clear based on comments from all parties involved. Brian and Al (and presumably Dave) were ready and willing. They couldn’t set anything in stone until *all* parties had a willingness to continue. Booking non-reunion shows before the reunion tour is even done doesn’t show that willingness or intent.

Remember as well, part of the at least on-the-surface disagreement about more reunion activity seemed to stem from timing. One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 


I can talk about a lot of stuff and you could hear me but we haven't discussed a thing. Somebody else could talk about a lot of things they want to do for both of us and we listened but we haven't discussed anything. Discussion was also in the context of "within the group" about concrete things in writing which according to Mike, as I take it, was still in the future in September 2012 and in 2015 had never happened back then or since.

But there are problems with this. Firstly, I think it’s potentially absurd to expect “concrete things in writing” when considering recording another album or considering another tour. I’m not seeing anything like “I was ready to do another album and tour just like we did in 2012, but I never got anything in writing so I went back to my own thing.” He was *already* going back to his own thing. I think you’re placing more emphasis on “something concrete in writing” being the reason Mike didn’t do more reunion activities than he is.

Before the tour was even over, we have interviews with Al Jardine at the Grammy Museum event where he already seems to be desperately trying to convince Mike not to just go back to his own tour.

The simplified, pared-down question is this: Was Mike ready and willing to do another album and tour, with the demise of such plans consisting of Mike not being presented with “concrete offers in writing”? Or, was Mike dissatisfied with elements of the reunion tour and album, and already planning post-reunion activities before the reunion was even over? Given the evidence at hand, the latter seems far more likely.

We’ve had brief moments where things almost seem to converge and everybody’s answer almost makes sense. For instance, a new Beach Boys album didn’t happen. Mike seems to acknowledge that that album, in Brian’s mind, was going to follow the TWGMTR format of more Brian/Joe songs forming the basis. Mike has also said in the past that he didn’t find that Brian/Joe songwriting basis as his preference, and has also stated his preference both in the past and going forward is to write songs from scratch, and alone, with Brian. The problem is that it stops there. There’s no “therefore, that’s why I didn’t want to do another Beach Boys album with Brian. It wasn’t the type of album I wanted to do.” Then it digresses even further into other justifications and backhanded compliments (I’m sure the song with Brian and Al would sound great, IF there’s no autotune…)
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #471 on: March 03, 2015, 01:09:31 PM »

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.


One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014. 


If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.


Or maybe this means that even Mike knows that his little merry band of bald guys, fat guys, and guys wearing girl jeans isn't The Beach Boys, and therefore him touring as "The Beach Boys" wouldn't have any effect on demand.

But at the same time, let's be honest: he obviously was just doing the whole "take a year away" thing so people would be off of his back. I don't believe he had any intention to reunite again unless it meant that Brian joined Mike's band and decided to do an album of covers and Wilson/Love co-writes.

Yes, even at the time, the “give it a rest” argument seemed like a case of trying to get people to drop the subject, especially while they had to deal with the press and finish out the C50 tour dates. Even then, let us not forget another one of the “Spinal Tap-esque” moments where the Eagles management had to call Mike out in relation to the “market oversaturation” topic.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3744



View Profile
« Reply #472 on: March 03, 2015, 01:34:17 PM »

I think we are getting close to being on the same page finally. Like some were trying to say a bunch of pages ago, Mike is saying (in 2012 and 2015) there was a lot of talk without follow up, talk without discussion. He/they were open to more dates and albums but when the C50 agreement ended the talk never amounted to something in-writing/set-in-stone/concrete that came before them or was discussed.


One of the arguments that Mike brought up back in 2012 was to “give it a rest” for a year to build up demand. Whether he really was serious about the idea or was just trying to get people off his back about why they weren’t going right back out on the road and into the studio, I don’t know. But Brian was talking in his LA Times article about more show offers presumably in 2012, not 2014.  


If anything, perhaps Mike thought that he could use the “give it a rest for a year to build up demand" thing as an excuse, to buy time and hopefully get Brian to cave to Mike's demands in the meantime. It was really just a made-up excuse though. C'mon. There's no way you can tell me a guy like Mike Love ever actually wants to give anything a rest touring-wise. If he wrote songs with Brian in a room and got to remain the center of attention in C50, he'd not have wanted to give it a rest.

Mike can claim that, and it might make logical sense to some people reading his side of the story, and get some people behind him, but ultimately it fails as an excuse. It's not consistent with any of Mike's touring actions, ever.

While we as hardcore fans, as well as promoters, know the difference between Mike’s “Beach Boys” and the C50 “Beach Boys”, I think his “give it a rest” argument lost a lot of credibility when the concurrent discussion also involved that he was *immediately* going back out on the road as “The Beach Boys.”

I mean, wouldn’t it build up *even more* demand if you literally take the BB name off the market for even just one season?

These are obviously rhetorical questions that are even more meaningless in light of that fact that, in my opinion, factors such as “market demand” had little or nothing to do with the reunion’s demise.


Or maybe this means that even Mike knows that his little merry band of bald guys, fat guys, and guys wearing girl jeans isn't The Beach Boys, and therefore him touring as "The Beach Boys" wouldn't have any effect on demand.

But at the same time, let's be honest: he obviously was just doing the whole "take a year away" thing so people would be off of his back. I don't believe he had any intention to reunite again unless it meant that Brian joined Mike's band and decided to do an album of covers and Wilson/Love co-writes.

Makes me kinda sad .... An album of Wilson/Love co-writes would probably not be what we'd assume... Sure, there would be some songs about beaches, but an entire 12-14 song album: surely they'd mix it up a bit ..... When you mail Mike a cassette with the title "Beaches In Mind" to draft lyrics for, what else do we expect? But a whole album ..... Possibilities are endless.

Logged
dcowboys107
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 83


View Profile
« Reply #473 on: March 03, 2015, 01:41:19 PM »

This passive aggressive behavior on both sides is really beneath the legacy of this band. What a shame. Where they could be working as a team to brandish their legacy (both creatively and financially), once again they fail to see the big picture.

Cue 15 Big Ones (v.2.0)
Logged
ESQ Editor
Honored Guest
******
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 541


View Profile
« Reply #474 on: March 03, 2015, 02:08:02 PM »

I think the most obvious followup question would be: "For someone who had no interest in participating in this new album, and had made no overtures to do so, you have such an opinionated and seemingly prepared negative response to its existence. Why is that? By your word and deed you clearly have no interest in a working partnership with your cousin. In fact, the way you're talking almost sounds like you did during the height of the Landy era. Can you name the moment during the 2012 tour when the partnership turned sour again?"

THAT'S your followup. Right there. Your followup is "WHAT HAPPENED?"

I don't wanna dump on you David, but that's the gig. You might not get the posed photo with your arm around them afterwards (but you probably will).

For the record, Mike Love told me this, on the record during the tour, which would leave no one to doubt that after some fine tuning, he would be more than happy to carry on with a new album and future "real group" dates:  

____________________________________________


There was a classic Carl quote from an interview where he said, “Remember when we said Brian was back – well, he’s really back now!” Now the thing that the true fans want to know is – “Does Mike have Brian back???”


Well, on the new album, the only thing I missed was getting together with Brian, one on one and creating songs from scratch, like we did with “Do It Again,” like we did with “Fun, Fun, Fun,” like we did with “Surfin’ Safari” and “California Girls.” That did not happen on this album. What it was was quote a few songs that Brian had started, or that Brian and Joe Thomas had developed and then there were some lyrics that weren’t finished – like on “Isn’t It Time.” So, I came in and was basically asked to complete some of these songs – which I did, gladly, and sing my parts and what have you. But, getting together and writing a song from its inception was not part of this album project -- with Brian, that is.  So, I could use a little more one on one time with Brian, if we’re gonna do another album – that’s for sure.

With Joe Thomas, it’s like an intermediary came in and kind of glued this thing together with the 50 Big Ones Productions. Now, as far as financing everything, getting everyone together, financing the tour…

He did a really great job. There’s not many people that could’ve done and ‘gotta give him a lotta credit for the success of this album project. ‘Cause I don’t think there would be a contemporary album without the energy and organization that he put into it.


Howie, if I've said it once, I'll say it again, "You are an incredible writer."  You and I both LOVE "Cabin Essence," and when we met backstage in Irvine in June of 2012, I knew that I found a like-minded/kind-hearted soul.  Was I wrong?    

I asked many follow up questions throughout the course of 2012 that appeared in various editions of ESQ, so that's covered.  As for the Examiner article, Mike's response was emailed, and it was a "one time" statement.  Could I have gone back and picked at that emotional scab?  Sure.  But why would I do that to him?  The Beach Boys deserve better than that.  All of them.  The alarming amount  of indignation on this (or any other) message board (or social media platform) is unsettling.

The comments made at the bottom of the Examiner article were awful.  That's why I initially took it down.  Let me clarify.  I took it down because I felt that I did a disservice to The Beach Boys name.  I felt bad about my decision, because of all negative sh*t that followed.  I'm going to probably take a hit for what I say next too, but here goes.  I am a Christian man of deep faith, and the music of The Beach Boys is very much a part of who I am…deeply engrained.  Is it corny (insert whatever word you like here) to tell The Beach Boys that you love them for what they've done for the world?  If you feel the answer is, "yes," then I'm guilty.  I have literally told each of them.  In fact, in 2012, immediately following the April 28 show in Atlanta, I went backstage, hugged Al, and told him how powerful "All This Is That" was…how much it meant to me to hear it performed because — I felt — it defined my connection to their sound.  He was really surprised by my reaction, and immediately went to tell Mike.  

This message board exists because of the music of The Beach Boys.  And I totally, truthfully, unequivocally…100% LOVE The Beach Boys' music.  That ONE reason is why I am even taking the time to write this.  You all deserve better than taking shots at one another for liking different members or songs.

Howie, you dump on me…quite a bit.  Unfortunately, based on your posts, ESQ will never be what you want it to be.  But as I have already stated, the door for you to submit something is WIDE open.  As great of a writer that you are, I would think you could find a more professional way to share your thoughts about the magazine and its direction.  As it stands, you just dump.  Nevertheless, love ya' brother.

We all share a love for the Beach Boys' music.  So here's a question:  How many on this message board literally listen to the groups' music while they're trolling this board?  Make that task #1 going forward.  Every time you log in, check a thread, etc., put the music on.  See if that doesn't change your thought process/mood a bit.  

I think we owe a message board dedicated to The Beach Boys that much.  

Howie, right now…listening to "Cabin Essence."  Peace.
Logged
gfx
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 1.916 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!